Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 191
5
Constraints and Opportunities for
Multifaceted Water Planning
INSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
Various studies and the development of plans related to water and
environmental management in California's bay delta have been conducted
by multiple federal, state, local, and private entities. Their actions are moti-
vated and directed by a variety of federal, state, and local legislation; rules
and regulations; and private charters and agreements. The management
activities are sometimes independent, other times overlapping, but often
inadequately coordinated as part of integrated environmental management
programs with clearly defined and agreed-on goals and objectives. This
lack of integration and coordination applies also to the conduct and use of
science. This assessment is not unique to the delta. Lack of such integra-
tion is a common feature of watershed management in the United States
(NRC 1999, Imperial and Kauneckis 2005, Ruhl et al. 2007, Pfeffer and
Wagenet 2011).
Although delta planning to date, as well as the committee's task, has
been focused on the delta, the committee concludes that delta planning can-
not be successful if it is not integrated into statewide planning. The delta is
fed by large upstream watersheds and water from the delta is used outside
the region. Planning for alternative courses of action to meet delta needs
will affect water needs upstream of the delta, in areas served by the state
and federal projects, as well as water needs in the delta itself. Planning is
required to meet public policy goals regarding the delta ecosystem as well
as providing a reliable water supply. Planning will likely need to provide
flexibility to reallocate water and accommodate wide-ranging watershed
191
OCR for page 192
192 SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE DELTA
practices, conservation, and demand management with regard to all uses,
in stream and out of stream. Delta plans will affect and be affected by an
important Colorado River basin linkage and other interbasin and interstate
transfer agreements. In this chapter the committee attempts to identify some
of the planning and water management characteristics that are needed as
well of some of institutional opportunities that exist to address these needs.
Management of the water and environment of the delta is fragmented,
as noted previously. One outcome of this is that decisions are often prob-
lem- or site-specific and not coordinated with related decisions made by
other management agencies. For example, groundwater planning and as-
sessment take place locally, but there is no coordination between local plans
or statewide regulation of groundwater and it is not clear how the potential
of groundwater storage has been incorporated into statewide plans. Reha-
bilitating an ecosystem requires a systems-oriented management approach,
but decision making is almost always in response to the demands of par-
ticular and competing interests (Pfeffer and Wagenet 2011). Such reactive
decision-making results in decisions that are narrowly cast at meeting spe-
cific demands or reconciling differences between the incompatible demands
of competing interests. An obvious example of such interest-driven decision
making is water allocation during drought when supplies are insufficient
to meet all the agricultural, urban, industrial, and environmental demands.
In such a situation it is important that a systematic, transparent process
be in place to reconcile the demands of specific interests and to represent
more general ecosystem needs. The absence of such a process has led to
intense political competition for water resources while the adverse effects
of scarcity are being felt.
A recent review of the structure and approach to California water
planning by the Little Hoover Commission concluded that the fragmenta-
tion of management and resulting lack of system-level decision making
could be addressed if there were a single entity accountable and in charge
of California's water planning (Little Hoover Commission 2010). That
report laid out a possible organizational model, which is shown in Figure
5-1. This schematic identifies one possible configuration of responsibilities
among the relevant state agencies in California, but such a framework also
needs to address how federal responsibilities and interstate factors would be
incorporated. There are other options. For example, Hanak et al. (2011),
addressing the same issue, made a different but related proposal. A com-
prehensive vision for governance of California's water policy has yet to be
laid out, but it is critically needed if progress is to be made.
This committee did not conduct a management analysis such as that of
the Little Hoover Commission Report, which is presented only as an ex-
ample, but it is clear that the current organizational structure (or absence of
structure) makes it difficult to develop a thoughtful, balanced, sustainable
OCR for page 193
CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Model Creates Comprehensive Approach to Water Governance 193
California Water Commission
Bond oversight
Bond oversight
Department of Water Management
State Water Water quality regulation
Resources Water Management
Control Board Water Rights Determine daily how much
Catalog rights water is available Water Planning Department of
Measure, monitor use (from Integrated Regional
Resolve disputes
Water Management
Fish and Game
Enforce water rights Fish & Game)
permits and licensing Track water use (from water program
Delta water master rights) State Water Plan
Process permit and Develop instream flow Surface storage
license applications analysis investigations/reservoir
Collect water use data Track groundwater levels system optimization
(transmit to Water Dam safety Agricultural water
Management) Flood protection efficiency planning
Water rights regulation
Water transfers
Connect to science team
and Delta Stewardship
State Water Authority Council
State-owned
Runs State Water Project
Retains water rights
Owns dams, canals and pumps,
hydroelectric assets
Independent board
Delta Stewardship
Water rights regulation Council
Delta Conservation Plan
Greater integration of operations and facilities Delta Conservancy
Enforce Bay Delta Conservation
Plan
Interact with federal government on
Delta issues
Central Valley Project
FIGURE 5-1One possible governance structure for comprehensive water gover-
nance in the state of California, proposed by the Little Hoover Commission.
SOURCE: Reproduced from LHC (2010).
plan that could ensure rate and tax payers are making wise investments.
The institutional arrangements that have characterized current, and to
the best of our knowledge past, planning have not been suited to today's
task. These arrangements are the result of an attempt to balance the many
vested interests whose work has created the sequential delta plans. In the
committee's judgment, California water and environmental planning should
include integrated strategies based on current scientific knowledge, and re-
gional and watershed plans. It should take advantage of the best practices
and facilities available. It needs to be credible and independent and include
relevant statewide if not interstate (Colorado River basin) considerations. It
should be designed to achieve constitutional requirements for all reasonable
uses, to meet and anticipate environmental requirements, and to provide a
guideline for local and regional options, where such options are not incon-
sistent with the long-term goals of statewide water management.
OCR for page 194
194 SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE DELTA
Some Considerations for Water Management
Several fundamental issues have yet to be addressed in current state and
federal planning efforts for the delta. These include, but are not limited to
· providing a workable, operational definition of "co-equal" goals of
restoration and water supply reliability (see Chapter 2) in the con-
text of other needs such as flood risk management and navigation;
· reconciling individual endangered species requirements with other
priorities;
· understanding the effects of levee failure on habitat conservation
measures and water supplies;
· assessing the effectiveness of adaptive management when the reli-
ability of water diversions is a goal (if reliability of diversions is a
goal, the flexibility to manage adaptively might not be present);
· understanding the effects of climate changealtered precipitation and
runoff on reliability of water supply and related short- and long-term
conservation measures;
· evaluating long-term cost of habitat-conservation measures and wa-
ter-supply reliability measures in light of the principle that beneficia-
ries pay and with the value of the long-term investments of taxpayers
and water users in mind; and
· developing methods for assessing the costs and benefits of public
investments in levee security resulting from protecting delta agricul-
ture, and methods for assessing whether and when to stop maintain-
ing the levees.
If these and other issues are not addressed in statewide planning, they
should be addressed in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) (see NRC
2011), the Delta Plan, and other delta planning efforts. Some of the more-
focused issues that have not been addressed in current planning include
· dealing with current legal constraints and protections with regard to
groundwater storage and optimal water transfers, particularly con-
sidering long-term reliability of supply and sustainability of storage;
· achieving statewide optimization of water use and equity with regard
to water-conservation practices and reuse, urban and agriculture,
and environmental allocations during drought periods; and
· a full consideration of alternatives for managing the stressors on
the ecosystem, the costs of reducing or remediating them, and their
implications for other beneficial uses.
OCR for page 195
CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES 195
Recent substantial rainfall (especially in 2010), success in water-con-
servation measures (particularly in the urban sector), and some interim
measures such as the facilitation of transfers between users and ground-
water storage could provide some breathing room. This is particularly true
since some utilities believe that water demands are not expected to return
to levels of the early 2000s until about 2020. This period should be seen as
an opportunity to build an improved water management system (and plan)
cognizant of the realities of long-term water scarcity and sufficiently inte-
grated to deal with that scarcity. If the period of reduced stress is wasted, it
could be too late to build a more enlightened approach when the severity
and impacts of shortage increase.
A key element in discussions of future water-management options in
the delta is the isolated conveyance facility (peripheral canal or tunnel, the
principal element of the dual conveyance strategy). Some experts have ad-
vocated such a facility since the 1960s. To the northern California public
it has become an icon of objection to the impacts of growth in California.
Its final form has not been agreed on, but a prominent version as described
in the BDCP has been a tunnel(s) under the delta with five screened intakes
located downstream of the discharge of the Sacramento regional sewage
treatment plant. An isolated conveyance facility is a central element of
the BDCP, where it has been described as a conservation measure, and it
or something like it has been a focus of discussion in the delta for five de-
cades. The committee has not analyzed the benefits and disadvantages of an
isolated conveyance facility, because not enough specific information was
available about it (see NRC 2011), and we make no recommendation with
respect to its adoption as a major part of water management in the delta.
However, the committee does recommend that before a decision is
made whether to construct such a facility and in what form, the sizing of
the facility, its location, and the diversion design and operation, including
the role of current diversions, should be analyzed as part of any integrated
delta plan, and compared to alternative water management options, includ-
ing current operations. All the alternatives should be evaluated to ensure
that the investment currently estimated at between $8 and $12 billion (with
considerable uncertainty) will meet both environmental and water-supply
objectives. Sustainability, reliability, and environmental objectives require
that the design of any new system be as flexible as possible to manage vary-
ing and unpredictable flows. Operations should be able to meet adaptive
management goals and to routinely and frequently rebalance ecological pro-
tection with water supply reliability. The above considerations would apply
to any new construction to manage water flows in and around the delta.
OCR for page 196
196 SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE DELTA
Current Management Limitations
Stakeholder advocacy preferences are currently driving delta and re-
lated water programs in California. These are reflected in the sequence of
delta plans beginning in the 1960s, the current status of environmental
review of actions and projects, and most importantly the increasing ten-
dency to design activities as to minimize objections of any politically con-
sequential view. One way of looking at the current situation is that existing
laws and regulations are implemented only to the extent that they satisfy
significant interests. Nor does such a process inspire public trust. Recog-
nition of this difficulty has led to "collaborative" planning approaches,
such as the BDCP, where stakeholders are invited to participate (see NRC
[2011] for a review of a draft of the BDCP). However, without any formal
structured decision-support process to organize the wealth of information
available or to allow preferences to be expressed in quantitative terms,
broadly acceptable and effective solutions for resolving delta issues have
been hard to come by. Perhaps more important, it has not been clear who
has provided the charge to the collaborative decision-making process or
body, and to whom the resulting decisions are addressed. In other words,
who asked for the process, and who will decide how and whether to execute
its recommendations?
The current management approach appears to try to design the resto-
ration and reliability program by committee, directly or indirectly, since
authors of various parts of the plan realistically anticipate the reception
that various measures might receive. As a result, alternatives, mitigations,
or numerical assessments that might cast doubt on a particular course of ac-
tion can be given limited attention or even be ignored. Trade-offs are rarely
analyzed or presented transparently. Such a process reflects inadequacies in
leadership that if continued will fail to inspire the kind of public support
essential to moving forward constructively.
For many reasons, not the least of which are specific court rulings, wa-
ter management in the delta in recent years has been reactive and singular
rather than proactive and comprehensive. Planning for the future should
reflect a clear vision of future water use and availability that recognizes the
likelihood of future variability, and that the water management desires of
all sectors or interests cannot be fully met. Such planning should create a
basis for public comparison of alternative scenarios and strategies, includ-
ing costs and benefits. It should incorporate a variety of well explained and
documented models that include life cycles of individual species, as well
as multielement strategies. The committee recognizes that there are many
uses of the delta and its waters and the requirements of diverse statutes,
regulations, and policies might not always be consistent with each other.
OCR for page 197
CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES 197
This does not negate the need for comprehensive planning; rather, it makes
it more urgent. But it does make it more difficult.
Ideally public policy such as the established "co-equal goals" would
precede the development of a plan: objective and complete analysis of needs
and solutions for achieving environmental restoration, reliable water sup-
ply, and anticipated future requirements. Then goals would be reconsidered
in whole or in part, in light of the activities necessary to achieve them. In
that way the BDCP and the delta plans could inform California policy for
the future. Recent individual Endangered Species Act (ESA) court rulings
that have led to changes in water exports from the delta, together with
the planning thus far, represent a collection of discrete pieces of important
information, and not a balanced and prioritized set of recommendations
constituting a strategic plan for the state. Achievement of a scientifically,
technically, and societally supportable plan requires the individual and
collective consideration of "significant environmental factors," a quanti-
fied effects analysis, and goal-based adaptive management programs that
provide a platform for future investments in water-supply and restoration
activities. These all require clear-headed decision making and leadership
that are difficult to come by if governance of the plan or water management
as a whole remains fragmented.
In considering ways to improve water planning and management for
the delta, it is logical to search for examples here or abroad that have
achieved success, or approaches that have allowed disparate opinions to
converge toward a common goal. The committee could not identify any
examples that would achieve every aspect of the process described here.
However, several examples provide aspects of good governance that could
be informative for the delta. The examples include the Ruhrverband in the
Ruhr River watershed in Germany,1 the Murray Darling Basin Authority
in Australia,2 a study of long-term augmentation of the water supply of the
Colorado River system (Colorado River Water Consultants 2008), and the
South Florida Water Management District and restoration of the Greater
Everglades Ecosystem in Florida (USACE and SFWMD 1999, NRC 2006,
2008, 2010).
Managing Science
In the examples above, the independent water agency's functions in-
cluded monitoring, data management, and research: coordinating and
using science. The need for a strong science component to water manage-
ment is increasingly well accepted (Jacobs et al. 2003). But the degree to
1 See http://www.ruhrverband.de/en. Accessed July 17, 2012.
2 See http://www.mdba.gov.au/. Accessed July 17, 2012.
OCR for page 198
198 SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE DELTA
which science is integrated into water management will depend on how
it is managed. The South Florida Water Management District, which has
large responsibility for the restoration of Florida's Everglades, is, like the
Ruhrverband, an example of a water agency with a strong technical staff
that is well integrated into the water management system. At its inception
science management was also an important aspect of CALFED, in the
form of a formal Science Program. The Science Program is one of the few
aspects of the CALFED that was retained by the Delta Stewardship Council
although with considerably less funding. An informal poll of stakeholders
held in 2005 as CALFED was evolving into the Delta Stewardship Council
(Chapter 2) found stronger support for sustaining the Science Program
than for almost any other element of the program (Sam Luoma, University
of California, Davis, personal communication, February 2012). Important
elements of the science program include an independent lead scientist, with
authority to report directly to the governing council; using consultation
with experts and stakeholders to define strategic science directions; fund-
ing research proposals only if they pass robust peer review; and fostering
communication about the technical aspects of controversial policy issues
via dialogue and reviews using independent experts (the program has in-
volved many independent experts from outside the bay delta). These "meet-
ings" are focused on reaching consensus on uncertainties and identifying
next steps to resolving those uncertainties. Advocacy debates are explicitly
avoided. All meetings are open to the public.
Water planning and management for the delta occur in the context of
statewide California water planning. The committee has considered a vari-
ety of institutional models and factors that illustrate some of the important
attributes of an effective water-management approach, including a water-
shed-based scope, consideration of water resource sources and uses of both
surface and groundwater, incorporation of water-quality considerations for
all environmental and consumptive uses, coordination with existing agen-
cies, the ability to conduct independent research and scientific analyses, a
commitment to community engagement, and oversight of monitoring. All
the factors are linked in some way to water management in the delta. Given
the history and disagreements regarding science and water planning, an
independent structure of some sort (without the committed missions of any
state or federal agency) could provide for the appearance and reality of ob-
jective guidance. This would enhance credibility and the likelihood that the
delta and statewide water interests are broadly considered and balanced.
The committee has mentioned organizations and activites in the United
States and elsewhere that contain elements of good governance that could
be informative for the delta (above). There is no best model for California.
The existing web of water institutions would be best aided by a new profes-
sional planning function that could provide decision makers and managers
OCR for page 199
CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES 199
with science-based guidance, particularly regarding the tradeoffs, costs,
benefits, and likely environmental consequences of alternative courses of
action, and better integration of local and regional water management
activities within a statewide environmental and water planning framework.
THE ROLE OF SCIENCE
California has been making major investments in its water and envi-
ronmental infrastructure for decades, including varying amounts of support
for science specifically to inform management actions. Many of the findings
from monitoring and scientific studies, especially since the late 1990s, have
affected the strategic view of California's water issues. For example, rec-
ognition of the threatened status of a number of species native to the delta
stems from the approximately 60 years of aquatic monitoring in the system,
led since 1970 by the Interagency Ecological Program. This is no small
accomplishment. Places with analogous issues (e.g., the Murray-Darling
system in Australia) have no such systematic biological monitoring. One of
the early syntheses of scientific knowledge about San Francisco Bay (Jassby
et al. 1995) formed the basis and justification for a regulatory approach
that remains a core ingredient in managing water for the delta (managing
the position of X2; see Chapters 1 and 3). As a result of numerous stud-
ies through the past 15 years, we now have a robust understanding of the
likely implications of climate change for water management in the delta
(and California in general).
Recent multidisciplinary studies that tie together complex models to
evaluate different climate change scenarios provide a model for future ef-
forts on how to address the challenges these changes will present (Cloern
et al. 2007). Our basic understanding of hydrodynamics in the delta has
changed from an assumption that net inflows from rivers drove the major
processes to an appreciation of the strong role of tides during much of
the year. The ecology of the delta itself was essentially unknown as late as
the mid-1990s; much has been learned that has implicitly, if not explicitly,
changed the way that scientific and policy problems are addressed. These
are but a few of many possible examples of the importance of a strong sci-
ence underpinning to support policy needs in this system. The committee
recommends that whatever management structure is carried forward, that
the strong combination of monitoring and assessment, agency driven sci-
ence, and academic peer-reviewed proposal-driven science be perpetuated.
On the other hand, it is clear that managers, policy makers, scientists,
judges, and the public have struggled to interpret information about the
delta and its inhabitants, and they have struggled to find consensus on
critical aspects of policy based on that and other information. This commit-
tee has struggled, too, as have others, with both the scientific information
OCR for page 200
200 SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE DELTA
available and how to move forward. Indeed, there are genuine scientific
uncertainties. While it is clear how the delta has changed in many ways,
and that many aspects of its environment are less hospitable to many of
the organisms that live there than they used to be, it often is difficult to
unequivocally identify any one factor responsible for any specific ecological
change. It remains difficult to forecast the outcome of specific rehabilitation
actions with much confidence. It also is very difficult to identify cause and
effect by correlating the timing of human-caused environmental changes
and the timing of resultant ecological changes. However, the committee
remains confident that science can be useful to policy makers in and around
the delta.
Many authors have discussed the challenges in establishing an effective
relationship between science and policy in an uncertain environment (e.g.,
Lubchenco 1998, Policansky 1998, Lawton 2007). Sarewitz (2004) even
suggested that science makes environmental controversies worse! The diffi-
culties often revolve around a lack of clear articulation of values and goals.
Indeed, uncertainty can be used to make decisions to undertake expensive
actions difficult to justify and easy to oppose. This problem has been all too
evident in the delta in recent years as evidenced by the return to litigation
around 2004. However, uncertainty does not have to lead to conflict. If at
least a portion of the scientific dialogue is directed toward identifying areas
of disagreement, rather than who is right and who is wrong, consensus is at
least possible on next steps (Jacobs et al. 2003), and management of conflict
can be improved. CALFED experimented with this type of dialogue (Jacobs
et al. 2003), but that approach appears to have eroded over time.
Managing conflict is only one ingredient in making progress on policy
via constructive use of science, however. Much good science has been
conducted in and around the delta. However, there has been inadequate
construction of the resulting knowledge into consensus for action. That has
not been for want of trying. One part of the problem is that conflict and
litigation among different interest groups have soured what collaborations
and trust once existed. But it appears to this committee that a second, more
important problem is present; it is that a successful method of governance--
in the broad sense--of the state, the delta, and of science has not taken root.
This lack of a leadership model is a major contributor to the controversies,
litigation, disagreements, and continuing lack of consensus.
While it is beyond the charge of the committee to specify a reorga-
nization of science or the science-policy relationships that would lead to
rehabilitating the delta, it has identified some problem areas whose resolu-
tion would be helpful and some of the ingredients for such a resolution.
An independent leadership position is needed that is charged with accruing
scientific knowledge into a coherent conceptual model. Another way to say
this is that nobody is yet charged with, or even tries, to construct coherent
OCR for page 201
CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES 201
stories of how a large, interacting, complex system (or significantly com-
plex pieces of it) work. Excellent work is done by universities, by state and
federal agencies, by consultants, and by commissions and committees, but
there are few if any successful examples of synthesizing the information or
for gaining scientific consensus. The white papers that were commissioned
by CALFED were an attempt at drawing together such consensus, but they
have had only a minor impact. It has been evident during the tenure of
this committee that dueling scientific presentations are more common than
collaborations between scientists from different backgrounds and with
differing sources of financial support. In other arenas, where the goals are
more clearly defined and more widely shared (e.g., medicine, space explora-
tion, defense), collaboration and consensus on next steps among university,
industry, and agency scientists seem to be more common and effective. But
in all these cases a leader is essential who can focus on identifying the path
forward based on what was learned to date. In the delta, one possible solu-
tion is that the Delta Stewardship Council's independent lead scientist job
might be reframed to focus on leading and reporting out on the synthesis ef-
forts, leaving management responsibilities to a separate leadership position.
In general, nonscientist governance professionals have difficulty defin-
ing for scientists what they want or need to know. Similarly, scientists have
difficulty defining what kind of knowledge or evidence nonscientist gov-
ernance professionals would accept as a basis for actions and for defining
alternatives. These gaps need bridging for science to be most responsive to
decision makers' needs, but there does not appear to be a strong incentive
for scientists and nonscientist professionals to bridge these gaps. It prob-
ably is not possible for governance professionals to set forth in a specified
way what science they need to know, and what kind of science they would
accept as a basis for actions, but this committee judges that a collabora-
tive effort is needed, where scientists and governance professionals work
together as a single team, rather than as two separate entities. Critical ques-
tions to be addressed by such a team include how one characterizes risk and
how one assesses the degree to which risks are acceptable, what tools are
available for dealing with uncertainty, and what methods are available for
assessing trade-offs among options. Such conversations should lead to bet-
ter ways that scientists can contribute to addressing such questions. Below
and in Appendix F the committee discusses collaborative modeling as an
example of this kind of approach.
Finally, there needs to be an honest assessment of how reliable all the
scientific information is. For example, censusing widely but patchily dis-
tributed small fishes like adult delta smelt and juvenile striped bass, just to
name two, is an extremely challenging endeavor. It is difficult to distinguish
population fluctuations from changes in distribution. If one samples in
the same places each year, and one records a change in the number of fish
OCR for page 202
202 SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE DELTA
sampled, it will not be clear whether the change is due to a change in popu-
lation size or a change in distribution. If, on the other hand, sampling sites
often change, then it becomes easier to miss a genuine change in population
size. This is a difficult problem. It can be solved, but solving it is very ex-
pensive and takes time. Of course almost any sampling scheme will distin-
guish between a population that is widespread and abundant and one that
is small and patchy, but that is too coarse a filter for the problem at hand.
FUTURE UNCERTAINTIES AND UNKNOWNS
Scientific understanding of the ecological functioning of the delta is not
complete, and never will be. Many unknowns contribute to the difficulties
in formulating plans for ensuring sustainability. For example, the factors af-
fecting the pelagic organism decline (POD) are not completely understood.
The relative importance of water exports and other stressors are difficult
to quantify. As a result of the lack of knowledge regarding the ecological
functions in the delta, quantification of how various water-management
options affect the ecosystem is not straightforward. Although the quanti-
fication of the water-supply needs for agricultural and urban users of the
system with reasonable accuracy is possible, without clearly being able to
include the regime of freshwater availability necessary to sustain desired
components of the ecosystem, it is not possible to identify trade-offs and
conduct multifaceted planning in balancing the goals of the water resources
management in the delta system.
The future of the greater delta system is determined by major drivers of
change, some of which are irreversible (Chapters 3 and 4). Future states of
these drivers cannot be predicted in detail because of many uncertainties.
Such drivers include, but are not limited to (a) land subsidence, (b) invasive
species, (c) human population growth and urbanization, (d) seismicity, and
(e) climate change and sea level rise (Mount et al. 2006, Dettinger and Cul-
berson 2008, Lund et al. 2010). Most of these drivers are already altering
the delta irreversibly.
California's population is likely to continue to grow in this century,
and the projected water shortage in the coming decades is significant. In
particular, the largest increase is expected to be in the south, which depends
on the tributaries of the delta for its water supply. Although groundwater
mining in the San Joaquin Valley has supplemented water needs during dry
years, it is uncertain to what extent such a source will continue to meet
the shortfalls.
The frequency and occurrence of earthquakes in the delta region cannot
be predicted with certainty. The stability of levees during earthquakes also
is difficult to predict. Risk-assessment techniques are available to evaluate
probabilities and related costs to aid decision making. Because these risks
OCR for page 203
CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES 203
affect statewide water use, they should be assessed as part of a comprehen-
sive program.
Perhaps the most significant uncertainty lies in the impacts of climate
change and sea level rise (Chapter 4). Although there is increasing evidence
as to how warming may affect hydrology, there are significant uncertain-
ties in the future scenarios that should be used in planning (NRC 2011).
Moreover, sea level rise predictions have very wide ranges. Depending on
the magnitude of sea level rise, the resulting impact on the delta and its
functioning can be significantly different. The exact impact of the multiple
factors such as potential increase in flood and drought magnitude and fre-
quency, increased sea level and its extremes, changing runoff patterns and
habitat quality on the integrity of the levees, water supply to users, and the
ecological functioning of the delta is not known precisely.
The above uncertainties should not be allowed to lead to paralysis.
Much is known. But the above uncertainties suggest that agencies should
consider an array of possible future states, and such an approach should
assume "universal nonstationarity," or the idea that all aspects of the en-
vironment will constantly be changing. This implies that agencies should
develop adaptive strategies for a multitude of possibilities within a broad
range including extirpation of listed species and collapse of vital ecological
services. Each "future" should be characterized by particular configuration
of climatic regime, plausible physical system changes, water demands, and
the ecological habitats. In such a setting, it is clear that water resources
planning would demand flexibility not only in infrastructure but also water
supply options, and dynamic operations.
Several approaches exist to consider these "wicked" problems (Rittel
and Webber 1973, Conklin 2005), where uncertainty cannot be fully elimi-
nated by study and not all aspects of the problem can be adequately quanti-
fied. The committee recommends that future water resource planning in the
delta include one or more of these approaches (e.g., robust decision making
and shared vision planning) to explore the multiple consequences of deci-
sions. They are described in some detail in Appendix F.
Perhaps most critical is the need to rationalize the responsibilities for
decision making. Who gives the charge to the collaborative decision-making
body is an essential element because whoever gives the charge controls the
process. Similarly, who does the collaborative decision-making body report
to? Who decides whether and how its recommendations are met? Unless
these questions can be satisfactorily answered by the people of California
and their representatives, the problem of managing and allocating delta
water is unlikely to be satisfactorily resolved.
OCR for page 204
204 SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE DELTA
A PATH FORWARD: CONCLUSIONS
The committee concludes that the lack of explicitly integrated com-
prehensive environmental and water planning and management results in
decision making that is inadequate to meet the delta's and the state's diverse
needs, including environmental and ecological conditions in the delta. In
addition, the lack of integrated, comprehensive planning has hindered the
conduct of science and its usefulness in decision making.
Many efforts have been made to improve state and federal water plan-
ning, management, and regulation. Examples include the Porter Cologne
Act in 1969 (particularly the Basin Plans), the Clean Water Act of 1972
(particularly § 208), and the Urban Water Management Planning Act of
1985, together with recent amendments, state funding for watershed plan-
ning activities, local groundwater planning, recent legislation on improving
groundwater use databases, and a variety of other regulations and laws
designed to improve water management. Each of these efforts recognizes
that water science and technology should support planning that is compre-
hensive and that considers quality and quantity, considers the environment
and economics, and does so transparently to gain public confidence.
The committee recommends that California undertake a comprehensive
review of its water planning and management functioning and design modi-
fications to existing responsibilities and organizations that will anticipate
future needs, including those identified in this report. These needs include
dealing with scarcity, balanced consideration of all statewide water-use
practices and hardware alternatives, and adaptive management that can
adjust to changing conditions. The result should be that regions such as the
delta can be effective partners in a coordinated statewide effort.
With respect to water transfers discussed in Chapter 2, the state should
facilitate voluntary transfers and identify buyers and sellers for both short-
term and long-term needs. An essential element might be options to pur-
chase dry-year entitlements. Thus, reliability-dependent users--urban,
industrial, and agricultural--would have some long-term confidence that
shortages would be minimized by a predictable amount. As part of its
oversight of such transfers, the state must ensure that necessary instream
flow levels are maintained.
Delta conditions identified in previous chapters indicate that scarcity
of water for all needs will become severe. While more effective planning
is being developed, the state will need to get the most overall value from
its water resources. A variety of tools are available, including demand-side
management (conservation, including more-efficient and more-productive
water use) and supply-side management (water transfers, new sources of
supply, more-integrated management of groundwater and surface water,
enforcement of the constitutional reasonable and beneficial use limita-
OCR for page 205
CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES 205
tions, and invocation of the state public trust doctrine to reconsider past
allocation decisions). The flexible integration of these tools across a large,
complex network provides the adaptive capabilities needed to respond to
uncertainty.
Although the committee does not have a recommendation for a specific
organizational strategy, because that needs to be decided by the people of
California, it does have recommendations for the characteristics such an
organization should have. They include independence and authority; that
is, decisions should be not only enforceable but also accepted as legitimate
by most of the stakeholders affected. These are difficult to achieve. Inde-
pendence and authority require a funding source to provide the administra-
tive capacity to administer a full range of watershed-management tools to
enforce and incentivize compliance with rules and procedures; this might be
the exclusive province of the legislature, or some entity created and given
authority by the legislature. In any case, a method needs to be found to
incorporate the public's desires and to achieve the public's trust while al-
lowing for decisions that are made with the broader public interest in mind.
REFERENCES
Cloern, J. E., A. D. Jassby, J. K. Thompson, and K. A. Hieb. 2007. A cold phase of the East
Pacific triggers new phytoplankton blooms in San Francisco Bay. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(47):18561-18565.
Colorado River Water Consultants. 2008. Study of Long-Term Augmentation Options for the
Water Supply of the Colorado River System. CH2M Hill and Black & Veach. Available
at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/longtermaugmentationrpt.pdf. Ac-
cessed July 17, 2012.
Conklin, J. 2005. Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems.
New York: Wiley.
Dettinger, M. D., and S. Culberson. 2008. Internalizing climate change--scientific resource
management and the climate change challenges. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed
Science 6(2):1-17. Available at http://tenaya.ucsd.edu/~dettinge/sfews3.pdf. Accessed July
17, 2012.
Hanak, E., J. Lund, A. Dinar, B. Gray, R. Howitt, J. Mount, P. Moyle, and B. Thompson.
2011. Managing California's Water: From Conflict to Reconciliation. Public Policy
Institute of California, San Francisco, CA, 500 pp. www.ppic.org/main/publication.
asp?i=944. Accessed July 17, 2012.
Imperial, M. T., and D. Kauneckis. 2005. Moving from conflict to collaboration: Watershed
governance in Lake Tahoe. Natural Resources Journal 43:1009-1055.
Jacobs, K. L., S. N. Luoma, and K. A. Taylor. 2003. CALFED, an experiment in science and
decision making. Environment 45(1):30-41.
Jassby, A. D., W. J. Kimmerer, S. G. Monismith, C. Armor, J. E. Cloern, T. M. Powell, J. R.
Schubel, and T. J. Vendlinski. 1995. Isohaline position as a habitat indicator for estuarine
populations. Ecological Applications 5(1):272-289. Available at http://sfbay.wr.usgs.gov/
publications/pdf/jassby_1995_isohaline.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2012.
Lawton, J. H. 2007. Ecology, politics and policy. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:465-474.
OCR for page 206
206 SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE DELTA
LHC (Little Hoover Commission). 2010. Managing for Change: Modernizing California's
Water Governance. Available at http://www.lhc.ca.gov/studies/201/report201.html. Ac-
cessed January 3, 2012.
Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for sci-
ence. Science 279(5350):491-497.
Lund, J., E. Hanak, W. Fleenor, W. Bennett, R. Howitt, J. Mount, and P. Moyle. 2010.
Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press, pp. 1-229.
Mount, J., R. Twiss, and R. M. Adams. 2006. The Role of Science in the Delta Visioning
Process: A report of the Delta Science Panel of the CALFED Science Program. Available
at http://science.calwater.ca.gov/pdf/CSP_delta_vision_process_Twiss_062306.pdf. Ac-
cessed July 17, 2012.
NRC (National Research Council). 1999. New Sttrategies for America's Watersheds. Wash-
ington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. 2006. Progress Towards Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review. Washing-
ton, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2008. Progress Towards Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review. Wash-
ington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2010. Progress Towards Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review. Wash-
ington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2011. Global Change and Extreme Hydrology: Testing Conventional Wisdom. Wash-
ington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Pfeffer, M. J., and L. P. Wagenet. 2011. Communities of interest and the negotiation of wa-
tershed management. Pp. 109-120 in Pathways for Getting Better Water Quality: The
Citizen Effect, edited by L. W. Morton and S. S. Brown. New York: Springer.
Policansky, D. 1998. Science and decision making for water resources. Ecological Applications
8(3):610-618.
Rittel, H., and M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences
4:155-169.
Ruhl, J. B., S. E. Kraft, and C. L. Lant. 2007. The Law and Policy of Ecosystems Services.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Sarewitz, D. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental
Science and Policy (7):385-403.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management
District). 1999. Central and Southern Florida project, Comprehensive Review Study.
Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,
Vol I. Jacksonville, FL: USACE; West Palm Beach, FL: SFWMD, 586 pp. Available at
www.evergladesplan.org.
